Why not start at break 0 not break 1, similar to sequences starting at
index 0?
Maybe if break alone without integer, it breaks from the loop it is at
similar to the behavior we have right now in Python.
E.g.,
for matrix in matrix_array : # Index 0
for x in range(0,10) : # Index 1
for y in range(0,10) : # Index 2
for z in range(0,10) : # Index 3
if matrix[x][y][z] == 0 :
print("Found !")
continue 3 # which is equivalent to continue/break
alone
Ok, so, that's yet another proposition; what I meant by "the number of
loops to break" was not to number the loops in a constant way, but
rather to specify the number of loop-blocks whose flow to break. In
other words, my version's behavior depends on the "callsite" if you want
to target a specific line of code.
To me, to "manually" do "break n", you could read the script upwards
starting at the break's line, and count the number of for/while loops
you encounter; when your count matches break's parameter, switch back to
the standard code flow. Your proposal, on the other hand, requires
getting back to the start of the script and counting loops downwards.
That's not how I understand the standard break/continue's behavior, tell
me if I'm mistaken :-[…
I meant to start numbering at 1, not at 0, also because of the semantics
of the statement : "break n" would mean "break from n loops", not "break
up to the n-th nested loop". Therefore, the parameter-less version,
"break;", witch I always read as "break out of the (innermost) loop"
would read "break 1". For me, that's not an index after "break", it's a
cardinal: we don't break "the loop 0", we break "the first loop".
An added benefit from numbering from one would be to allow a "break 0"
statement with /no/ effect, e.g. for debugging purposes. (I can see
other, more esoteric uses, too, if arbitrary expressions were allowed,
but, hey, consenting adults here.)
I have tried to search for examples of numbering from 1 in Python, I'm
sure there are some, but I can't recall any just now ;-). Anyway, that's
not the core point of the proposal; I can concede that one.
One final point : with my way of numbering, the default parameter would
always be 1 (or 0, whatever), as opposed to your suggestion where you
number the loops from outermost to innermost. In our example, if I added
/ removed a loop in the block, a bare "continue;" would have its default
parameter vary implicitly. Therefore, "continue 3", as you put it, would
/not be/ equivalent to "continue" alone. I don't like that way of doing
it : a default parameter has always been a known, constant value ! Of
course, you could always differentiate between "continue" and "continue
<n>", saying they are two different statements that behave differently,
but then I'd rather have them named differently…
Regards,
Alexis
_______________________________________________
Python-ideas mailing list -- python-ideas@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-ideas-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-ideas.python.org/
Message archived at
https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-ideas@python.org/message/USHBNW3YIOTG5CIZDZIELMHBCGWJ5Y7Z/
Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
